A Small Plus To The Carbon Tax

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
So despite the universal criticism of the carbon tax here in Australia, namely, why add an extra $4 billion in taxes only to spend $2 billion on greener alternatives?

The maths don't add up!

Anyway, I digress, the first positive outcome of the carbon tax may be underway, although many Victorians will be misplaced by this.

The Hazelwood power station, one of the most dirtiest coal powered power stations in the world among other things looks to be shut down.




Ms Gillard has finally taken her carbon tax sell to the Latrobe Valley, fronting workers at the Hazelwood Power Station which is tipped to close under the plan.

She faced some "very hard questions" away from the media glare but was unable to provide any further certainty about whether Hazelwood would close, putting more than 800 workers out of work.


news.ninemsn.com.au...

What would you do?

I would have shut it down years ago, we don't need coal powered power stations when there are much better alternatives available, forget the CO2 stuff, the pollution alone is enough reason to get rid of places like this, then there is the health effects of those that live nearby as well as those that work there.

The loss of jobs for workers can be helped by employing them in the construction of new power plants.

Obviously it's not that black and white, but at least it's heading in the right direction, not sideways like the government likes to do.










edit on 16/7/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Yep, and lets remember in her great carbon tax rip off there are $Billions to buy carbon tax credits from OVERSEAS..

Looks like we're big on foreign aid..



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

The maths is simple, compenstation.....



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus


What would you do?

I would have shut it down years ago, we don't need coal powered power stations when there are much better alternatives available, forget the CO2 stuff, the pollution alone is enough reason to get rid of places like this, then there is the health effects of those that live nearby as well as those that work there.

The loss of jobs for workers can be helped by employing them in the construction of new power plants.

Obviously it's not that black and white, but at least it's heading in the right direction, not sideways like the government likes to do.






Absolutely, shut it down. "Jobs" that pollute the environment are not good jobs. Also, one point of contention; excessive CO2 release IS pollution.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Yep, and lets remember in her great carbon tax rip off there are $Billions to buy carbon tax credits from OVERSEAS..


So? What's your point? Carbon emissions know no international borders. Carbon released in Australia can impact countries around the globe.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

So? What's your point? Carbon emissions know no international borders. Carbon released in Australia can impact countries around the globe.


Yes that is exactly correct. So tell me this then, why is it that Australia, and presently only Australia are imposing a carbon tax, whereas the rest of the world are remaining as is.

The amount of carbon that Australia emitts is relatively nothing compared to the likes of China, India or the US.

Or perhaps the tax does not go far enough. Instead of just taxing the 500 major carbon polluters of the country, why not check everyones homes, and those with wood fires can be taxed in proportion to the size of their fireplace.

Gillard and the labor government are going to kill the manufacturing sector, and send Australian jobs overseas to those countries who don't seem to care how much carbon they produce.

She will most certainly not get my vote this coming election.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I just wanna know why Im gonna be $300 worse of per year

Plus, all the utilities will go up, making it even worse, then whats the bet that petrol prices sky rocket. This tax is a complete and utter joke. Why do I have to suffer.....the middle class always gets screwed over


I wont be voting Labour next election, neither will I be voting for that cretin Tony Abbot....and forget the Greens too. Looks like I will be drawing a big donkey on my ballot paper



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamesthegreat

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

So? What's your point? Carbon emissions know no international borders. Carbon released in Australia can impact countries around the globe.


Yes that is exactly correct. So tell me this then, why is it that Australia, and presently only Australia are imposing a carbon tax, whereas the rest of the world are remaining as is.


That is incorrect. here are many several countries around the world who have a carbon tax.

webcache.googleusercontent.com...:6iV_1OU-bJ8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax+countries+carbon+tax&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&clien t=firefox-a&source=www.google.ca

Where did you get the impression it was just Australia?


The amount of carbon that Australia emitts is relatively nothing compared to the likes of China, India or the US.


Yes, those countries also need stronger programs. Are you saying Australia doesnt pollue, just because ti has less infrastructure than other polluters?


Or perhaps the tax does not go far enough. Instead of just taxing the 500 major carbon polluters of the country, why not check everyones homes, and those with wood fires can be taxed in proportion to the size of their fireplace.


What purpose would that serve? Carbon emissions from a coal powerplants are in NO WAY COMPARABLE to a home burning wood.\




Gillard and the labor government are going to kill the manufacturing sector, and send Australian jobs overseas to those countries who don't seem to care how much carbon they produce.


So short term economic gain is more important to you than the long term well being of the planet your grandchildren will inhabit?

What will these people do for jobs when all the coal is gone, and the water and air are poisoned?

\



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

The loss of jobs for workers can be helped by employing them in the construction of new power plants.



That will be fine for the workers who have a trade skill, but what about the workers who are simply that..workers.

If a new alternative power station is constructed, it would be using newer technologies, which generally means fewer employees. What happens to them? Oh I know, they will join the dole queue with the rest of the poor workers who have been forced out of work due to their jobs being sent overseas.

People need to wake up to themselves and stop believing the spin from the government.

The carbon tax is nothing more than a money grab.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
So short term economic gain is more important to you than the long term well being of the planet your grandchildren will inhabit?

What will these people do for jobs when all the coal is gone, and the water and air are poisoned?

\


They will all move to the countries that don't have a carbon tax.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jamesthegreat
 


So, from your perspective, short term financial gains are more important than long term environmental (and therfore economic) sustainability. It's an understandable perspective. After all, it's hard for the average 'worker' to grasp issues far larger than their own individual lives.

Nonetheless, avoiding addressing problems with pollution because 'jobs' are connected to industry is certainly short sighted,because employment is never as preferable as potable drinking water and breathable air. In fact, most people gain employment so that they can afford clean food, land, and air. IF there is none to be had, what's the point of the job in the first place?



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
think about it....

Carbon Taxes were developed in the states by Ken Lay of ENRON fame..
What was his other plan..the one that got him totally trashed
and led to the premature financial death of Califournia?
oh yeah, FAKE ROLLING BLACKOUTS which were used to drive up the price of electricity fraudulently...
which enron was busted for..

so they pick a fake target that like smokers, or underwearbombers,
is difficult to argue against to get the ball rolling
then once they have the door open...


ka bang
The almost nothing they give you at the cost of almost everthing you have
becomes entrenched...
till there is NO blood left to suck...
just like califournia...

so this "benefit" is just an illusion to get the ball rolling

sad to see you go....
broke.
edit on 16-7-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-7-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamesthegreat

Originally posted by Chadwickus

The loss of jobs for workers can be helped by employing them in the construction of new power plants.



That will be fine for the workers who have a trade skill, but what about the workers who are simply that..workers.


So we should keep unsustainable industries open so that jobs for unskilled workers will be provided? That sounds like a convoluted form of welfare.




The carbon tax is nothing more than a money grab.


That sort of off-the-cuff simplification of the issue only serves to highlight how little you likely understand about the issue. There are indeed many problems with carbon trading and taxing plans, but a step in the right direction is indeed better than no steps. To pretend that there arent problems with industries that pollute, and that no action should be taken, or that the 'market' should somehow magically repair the environment is absurd.

Legislation that moves us in a direction of having quantifiable values for various natural resources is a great step in the direction of giving people and the land rights in the face of international capitalism that seeks to extract all resources with no regard for the long term well being of the eco systems we all need to live. To continue with the notion that 'jobs' trump the care of these very ecosystems that provide the abundance we all rely upon is delusional.

The coal will run out one day. Where will the jobs be then?



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

So, from your perspective, short term financial gains are more important than long term environmental (and therfore economic) sustainability. It's an understandable perspective. After all, it's hard for the average 'worker' to grasp issues far larger than their own individual lives.



I don't mind a larger perspective,
but this isn't it.

The first question that should be answered is where in all Austrailia
is power the cheepest. The second is why. The third is when.
When will/was this plant paid for through operation revenue.
Then what will replace it.

Someone who goes right onto should we close plant x,
and if you're against it you are sacrificing the future for short term gains
is someone who has already answered all the important questions for you.
Someone trying to make one feel as though the decision already made was actually their own idea.


David Grouchy



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


is the australian agricultural portion of the carbon tax still planing on using helicopters to kill camels?

did anyone add the fuel of these helicopters in the equation of killing camels for carbon?

to me, this shows the whole idea is already in the hands of hopeless idiots.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 

you have to be kidding me right?
there is no peak anything
only ARTIFICIAL shortages in order to jack you up
as we have ALREADY SEEN



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


So you agree that short term financial gains are more important than long term sustainability of those very same economic mechanisms?



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 

you have to be kidding me right?
there is no peak anything
only ARTIFICIAL shortages in order to jack you up
as we have ALREADY SEEN


While some may claim that 'abiotic oil' will create enough oil for the world appetite, it is hardly a conclusion that is unanimous. Many find that theory to be baseless.

Regardless, my comment was directly related to coal, and I have NEVER heard of a theory claiming coal is regenerating at a rate that matches our consumption levels.

I suspect your desire to believe that fossil fuels like coal are infinite in their supply is born from a belief that our current lifestyle will never have to change.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Yep, and lets remember in her great carbon tax rip off there are $Billions to buy carbon tax credits from OVERSEAS..


So? What's your point? Carbon emissions know no international borders. Carbon released in Australia can impact countries around the globe.


My point is that that money should be used to invest in clean energy in Australia, where Australians will benefit with technology and jobs..

With Governments it's always a stick, never a carrot unless it's for their mates.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by jamesthegreat
 


So, from your perspective, short term financial gains are more important than long term environmental (and therfore economic) sustainability. It's an understandable perspective. After all, it's hard for the average 'worker' to grasp issues far larger than their own individual lives.

Nonetheless, avoiding addressing problems with pollution because 'jobs' are connected to industry is certainly short sighted,because employment is never as preferable as potable drinking water and breathable air. In fact, most people gain employment so that they can afford clean food, land, and air. IF there is none to be had, what's the point of the job in the first place?


Well as an average worker I am certainly glad that there are the elite such as yourself to make such informed desicions for the rest of us. Far be it for the rest of us to have an opinion or question what is being done to our country.
I humbly sit back and take my medicine from an academic such as yourself.

Even though I may not be as smart as you think you are, I have a very good understanding of the carbon tax. You
seem to be referring to the coal sector quite a bit, do you think that is the only industry affected?

Now don't get me wrong, I am all for less pollution, but another tax? As if the cost of living isn't high enough. I know coal is not a sustainable resource, blind Freddy could work that out. Obviously future coal related industries will be non existent, but during that phase out, other industries will naturally start up to fill that void.

There needs to be a balance between the economic and environmental future of Australia, and I don't see this as it. With the instability of the worlds economy (excepting it seems China), would it really be wise to impose an extra cost to businesses which then ultimately gets passed down to us, the consumer. I'm not saying do nothing. Start implementing change to the legislation to make industry lower there emissions, but have it phased In over a realistic time frame. Still regulate the industry emissions through the EPA, and fine them if they don't abide by their alloted emission amount. Charging them for each ton they produce is just a money grab. Of course industry pollutes, I'm sure there are some that don't, which no doubt you would be more than happy to inform me of, but there are none which affects all of us the way that the major polluters do.

All I say is, put it to a vote and we'll let Australia decide.

Oh just heard on Ten News that the government is spending 12million on a ad campain to promote the carbon tax. I wonder where the money for that is going to come from?

Just as you do, I also believe clean food,air and water is important. But so too is money. I don't know about you, but I can't survive on love alone. The dole check will only get you so far.
edit on 17/7/11 by jamesthegreat because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join